New Rich

The "new rich" don't transfer their wealth over generations and therefore they eventually "die off" and revert back to middle class. The "old money" are families that simply were able to intelligently continue their wealth over generations.

There is a reason why athletes end up poor as fuck by the time they die

It dates back to late feudalism when ancient families that earned their titles in centuries of bloody wars suddenly saw a bunch of pleb merchants buying their way into nobility just because they had cash. I'd be pissed too.

>How DARE you buy your way into the nobility? I'll have you know I EARNED it by coasting off of my ancestors' achievements!

I don't think they had much right to be mad.

Depends on the athlete. Yeah there's plenty of NFL nogs who are broke by 35 because they pissed all their money on hummers, diamond grills and coke, but then there's also the Matthews and Manning families who have multi generational wealth.

most of the times new rich are just plebs with money, and of course plebs act like plebs, and this is coming from a middle class south american man

Old money has money and breeding.

New money just has money.

You can't buy good heredity.

I wonder how many of those old militaristic aristocrats managed to hold onto their power and wealth as a distinguishable family over the centuries.

Like some cadet at Sandhurst that could directly trace his lineage back to the Normans or what have you.

Or what the oldest 'Old Money' would be at this point.

True, but I'd add to this that the 'old money' of modern times are basically the most prestigious of the high bourgeois families.
Actual, feudal aristocrats have been assimilated into the bourgeoisie, which derives legitimacy and prestige among its own from being descendants of these degenerated nobles.
The hatred of old money for the new money is pretty much an aping of older aristocratic customs, from a time when these families were the new money to be despised.

Its really not as simple as that. Being the feudal lord of a certain area often mean deep personal ties to various local figures in a system of patronage.
But by the time nobility can be bought, such an organisation of society was heavily decayed, hence why it was even possible.

>Or what the oldest 'Old Money' would be at this point.

I'd probably say either the Japanese royal family, they can trace their lineage back to around the 9th century or so.

>Matthews and Manning families who have multi generational wealth.

Look up the third generation rule of inheritance.

I can as well, but sadly my family lost their monies in the 19th century.

old rich families are arrogant pretentious aristocrats who feel threatened and mortal when they see some stupid pleb was smart enough to make as much money in their life as it took their family generations to get.

Also, its like a club house mentality of the FNG

>Or what the oldest 'Old Money' would be at this point.

Probably inbred Rothschild scum

Watching Barry Lyndon should help you understand.

People who gain the money in their lifetime often have major gaps in their understanding of elite *culture*.

Lots of royal families still count I'd say. Ex noble families like the von habsburgs still exist too.

A lot of European noble houses still around today aren't especially old as far as nobility is concerned. I mean the Windsors are, what, a century old? And the Habsburgs are probably the oldest still kicking in Europe, but they only date back to 11th century, so the Nips got them beat still.

>coasting

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>You own land
>Your son splits the inheritance with your brother, ends up with 50% of land
>His son ends up with 25% of land
>etc
>after a few generations they are on par with peasants

Inherited wealth doesn't survive by the inheritors doing NOTHING, that's a horseshit myth invented by jealous idiots.

Just look at the chinks flooding into california and canada today. They wear nigger streetwear clothing, have top-40 tier pop culture tastes, and drive things like pic related (not kidding, there are 2 of this exact car parked at my school). Newly rich actually do the stuff that poor people imagine themselves doing if they were rich - things that come from the mentality of a poor / low iq person.

in a word: elitism

>tacitly
wat

For the Italians, it was essentially that the old money was able to exist simply on a historic name that may even trace back to Roman days, so they could get away with higher dowries or the like. Moreover, New Money was not excluded so much as people think, because whenever old Money needs more money they marry off a daughter to New Money.

The thing to remember about Italy, is that Old Money could hold things like a slight blood tie to the Pope, a Cardinal, etc., that New Money simply won't have. Or, Old Money can give New Money political power, and that was essential, because in Italy it was not enough to have money or political power; both were required to be free of exile or similar power plays by other families.

Naturally, the concept of "old" and "new" money lingered for the same reason all oligopolies do: those without power wish to have power.

Wasn't primogeniture a quintessential feudal practice to prevent this exact thing?

Ugh. Look at all the lower class plebs responding to this. You idiots have no fucking idea why we are your betters. Um, simply it's because we are BETTER. Ooh, offended? Um, tiddums. Don't care.

>Why have the "new rich" always been despised by "old money" families?

Old generations always hate new generations, this has ALWAYS been the case.
When you are rich, you can express your feelings better, so rich young people can express the stuff old people hate more, and rich old people can express their hatred of it more.

Basically its the classic "darn kids" syndrome, amplified by the megaphone that is wealth.

The same reason whites didn't like niggers

It's really more about hating people who flaunt their money and spend garishly. Those people tend to be new money though.

If you mean Blacks no not really unless you mean middle class or successful black back in the day.

New rich aren't despised. They are laughed at. Get it right.

Even pic related makes quite a few mistakes. New money curse.

To an extent I get what you're saying.

But we have to look not to sports, musicians, and celebrities for ideal examples of New Rich, but rather captains of industry, particularly technology. I doubt people like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, etc. are trashily rich or unwise. Sure you get an occasional John McAfee or Notch, but those guys are nothing comopared to Kardashians.

Great points.

>You can't buy good heredity.
Nor can you deserve it.

"Old money" need to believe they are intrinsically better than the rest of us, in order to rationalize their place in the world. "Upstarts" who actually earn their wealth threaten their worldview, so they get all kinds of negative attributes attributed to them.

>Newly rich actually do the stuff that poor people imagine themselves doing if they were rich - things that come from the mentality of a poor / low iq person.

To an extent, yes.

Building of this "old money" survive. Many of the old money in Italy can trace their wealth back to the Italian city state period. Think how nuts that is, how many wars, coups, revolutions they had survived.

You can see it in China too, many of the upper bureaucrats of Communist China were Qing officials. Those guys grandsons have gone on to be Red Princes and are still holding onto their wealth. They'll survive the fall of the CCP and adapt to whatever the new system is.

This is the real difference between old and new money.

>Newly rich actually do the stuff that poor people imagine themselves doing if they were rich - things that come from the mentality of a poor / low iq person.

Only sometimes. e.g. Bill Gates vs Donald Trump

The House of Windsor may only be a century old but the Queen is a direct descendant of both William the Conqueror and Alfred the Great.

>is a direct descendant of both William the Conqueror and Alfred the Great.

There's a very good chance you and I both are too.

There's almost a guarantee we are.

Doesn't change the fact that there is an unbroken line of descent from the first kings of England to the current monarchy of the UK.

The original argument was that the nobility of Europe today is not very old.

It depends on the country, feudalism was very different from realm to realm. Hungary for example didn't have primogeniture.

Not everyone would go out buying gold ferarris and drinking poor tasting yet expensive liquor if they were rich. You're also not taking into account that their name has worth, and part of that comes from being known as someone who has money. Buying isn't stupid if it's an investment after all.

You dont understanding statistics.

"no."

Actually yes.

nbcnews.com/science/science-news/all-europeans-are-related-if-you-go-back-just-1-f6C9826523

umad?

>related

>direct descendant.

Struggle with reading and statistics.

tfw poor as fuk

Yes, directly descended, you idiot. You think there are articles about how we're all "related," like you are to literally every living thing?

Old rich tend to live more quaintly and have a tradition in preserving money through educating their children in investments and money management. It's why lottery winners are so poor near the end of their lifetime, they think one million dollars lasts forever when they're spending $20k a day, they just see money differently compared to old rich

I don't think it's fair to use lottery winners as a representative of "new money."

Because the nouveau riche try to emulate the lifestyle of the nobility and they fail while doing it. They equal the old money in terms of wealth but they lack the traditions and class.
If the subject interests you I advise watching "Il Gatopardo" (The Leopard). It takes place during the unification of Italy and follows a nobleman who watches the nouveau riche take over in the chaos.
It's 3 (three) hours long and tedious as fuck but it does have a Metascore of 100.

Still better said by Schopenhauer in my opinion.

>Their wealth becomes a punishment by delivering them up to misery of having nothing to do; for, to escape it, they will rush about in all directions, traveling here, there and everywhere. No sooner do they arrive in a place than they are anxious to know what amusements it affords; just as though they were beggars asking where they could receive a dole.

>tfw no matter if you're billonaire, you will never be aristocrat

Sure is summer

>Hurr Durr Donald Trump says meen things on TV so he's a flashy retard who doesn't know how to propagate more wealth and keep it.

>Pople defending those who got rich from taxing their ancestors into poverty rather than those who got rich from making the market grow

Trump is Old money through and through but he noticed the benefit of being a media star and used it to its own advantage.

Similar to Dubya Bush, who came from the north eastern old money, who went to yale, was a skull&bones member etc. He convinced dumb conservatives that he was a good ol'd texan cowboy and someone "you can have a beer with"

You can make the market grow by doing terrible deeds also. Nestle created a giant baby formula market, yay for its shareholders.

Poor people with money aren't part of the upper class no matter how bad they want to be

>myth invented by jealous idiots
as opposed to you, still a humble loyal bitch after centuries ?
or do you take pride in your inbred blood ?

this, new rich are living reminder of their own priviledge and selfishness

No, he's the epitome of gaudy/tasteless/flashy style whereas Bill Gates lives with incredible wealth at simpler means. It has nothing to do with how long their line lasts, it's what they do with it. You can't possibly deny that Trump spends more on stereotypically nouveau riche investments.

Trump does this for his public image.
He comes from an old money family.

He does it because it's his personality. Yes his wealth is inherited, but he's the epitome of "new money" stereotypes. Meanwhile Bill is the richest man on earth and totally self made, yet lives with dignity and class. All this shows is that stereotypes can be wrong.

fucking Machiavelli, I already see him as a new Jesus. The guy made the current era.

That feel when old money but the family is now probably the poorest it's ever been in its 850 year history.

It's a bad feel

Trump is most certainly not old money, not even by the American definition of the word.

Up until his father, his family was largely middle-class at best.

And many of his charitable efforts ate a mixed bag or steal the credit from otger ngo's or local efforts.

>bill is totally self made
His mom set him up with millions of dollars worth of preferential business deals, allowing him to lock-out all his competitors out of the office, inflicting unimaginable damage upon computer science education for all time.

Fuck you.

Shouldn't IBM have kicked the shit out of him if he had no talent?

>t. Butthurt serf

That sounds pretty plebish of you

It's fair to say all forms of wealth are created by redirecting the flow of money in some way or form into your direction. That money is flowing from someone else.

>why do 50 year old HR cunts hate cute young girls?

Buttmangled plebeians everywhere.

Is Microsoft Excel better than Google Sheets? Nope. (Go learn how to use and extend it you dope.) Is the Unix way better than the god-awful atrocity that is .NET? Yup. Did the BSDs exist contemporaneously with the infamous "DOS has no real scheduler" meme? Obviously.

Who got all the attention, though? The smart-ass who acted like an unscientific feudal king. Whether then or now, superior technology always comes second to brown-nosing and advertising combined with intentionally suppressing all competition (you are forbidden from making products competing with M$ using any of their managed libraries, even GDI has that stipulation).

Now Vulkan exists, it is objectively superior to DX12, and... M$ locks-down Intel drivers so they cannot use Vulkan. Wow. Much fascinating. Very doge.

Literally everything about M$ is shit. Even Fedora has better font rendering and battery life on the Surface Pro series (so long as you use wayland).

>Why have the "new rich" always been despised by "old money" families?

Because Old Money types are undeservedly riding the coat tails of their ancestor's skills and labors and know they couldn't compete with New Money, who made it on their own.

>great great great grandfather enters the country a trained metalworker and starts a foundry that puts his small town on the map
>buys up a big plot of land and builds a big old house on it
>good family who expands and all become leading figures in the town and outside area
>great grandfather's generation pisses all the money and business and reputation away, becoming alcoholics through and through
>grandfather dies in Vietnam
>new grandfather marries in and sells the family estate because he didn't like the house and the grandmother was a pushover
>still have the oil painting on my wall but I'll never visit that neat old house again
>don't even have the family name because the generation that ruined it all either killed themselves, had no children, or only produced daughters

i think he meant to use "tactfully"

Kind of like how Old Worlders hated New Worlders. Not exactly though.
Muh tradition, etc. What really got Old Worlders absolutely butthurt however was when New World nations superseded their former founding nations, especially in areas such as linguistic influence. This butthurt still resonates with them today.

But it isn't entirely that. New money trends to be Kardashian-tier, which is also large reason for the strife.

Because Old Money is an exclusive social class of interrelated (in both the hereditary and social sense) families which have managed to retain their status for generations, and have developed their own culture in the process.
New Money lacks the acculturation and pedigree. But if they manage to hold on to their money through the generations, or at least marry properly, they become Old Money.